Funding awarded through New York's Department of State’s Local Government Efficiency Grant Program

New York State Governor Hochul has announced $8 million in grant awards from the Local Government Efficiency Grant (LGEG) Program for 21 projects that create efficiencies and lower costs for local governments across New York State. The funding is administered by NYS Department of State and incentivizes New York municipalities to engage in partnerships that make communities more affordable.

The Local Government Efficiency Grant Program provides both planning and implementation funding to local governments that apply to the competitively scored grant program. 

Read More

New York City Administrative Law Judge recommended the termination of a City of New York employee who engaged in a scheme to defraud

New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearing Administrative Law Judge [ALJ] Charlotte E. Davidson recommended the termination of employment of an Eligibility Specialist [Respondent] with the City's Human Resources Administration [HRA] who, in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, engaged in a scheme to defraud the federal Small Business Administration’s [SBA] Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program and then failed to report her arrest for such conduct to HRA.

Judge Davidson found that HRA established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent was arrested for and charged with federal crimes for defrauding the SBA and that she admitted to the charged conduct under oath in federal district court as part of a deferred prosecution agreement. Such off-duty misconduct is a violation of HRA disciplinary rules.

Although Respondent testified that she felt unwell while giving her sworn admission and that the deferred prosecution agreement was not explained to her, her allocution* in federal court was reported to be thorough and robust. 

Respondent was asked about her health, the adequacy of her legal representation, whether she had read and understood her written agreement, and the substance of the conduct to which she was admitting. Further, the ALJ credited an HRA Director’s testimony that Respondent did not report her arrest to the agency over Respondent’s claim that she told an unnamed supervisor because Respondent’s testimony was vague and self-serving. 

Ultimately, Judge Davidson found that HRA proved that Respondent engaged in conduct that reflects unfavorably on her job fitness and may bring discredit to the agency because there is a clear nexus between defrauding the federal government and her job responsibilities, which include handling HRA’s clients’ sensitive personal and financial information. 

The ALJ recommended that the appointing authority terminate Respondent's employment, finding Respondent’s lack of disciplinary history did not outweigh the seriousness of the misconduct and her demonstrated dishonesty. 

* Allocution is the direct address between the judge and the convicted defendant prior to sentencing.  During the address, the judge speaks directly to the defendant and asks if the defendant has anything to add prior to hearing the sentence. The defendant then answers the judge and may say anything in an effort to lessen the severity of the sentence, such as an apology, an offering of remorse, or an explanation of the motivations for the defendant's actions. [Source: Cornell University Law School's Legal Information Institute.]

Click HERE to access Judge Davidson's decision posted on the Internet.

The Productivity Enhancement Program for 2026 applicable to certain employees in the public service of the State of New York and certain of its political subdivision

On October 30, 2025, the New York State Department of Civil Service issued the  Productivity Enhancement Program for 2026 applicable to employees of the State of New York as the employer, and certain employees of its political subdivision, subject to Department of Civil Service's Rules for the Classified Service.

Text of Policy Bulletin 2025-02 will be found at: Policy Bulletin 2025-02

Policy Bulletin 2025-02 is also available in PDF format at: Policy Bulletin 2025-02 PDF

To view previous Attendance and Leave bulletins issued by the Department of Civil Service, visit: https://www.cs.ny.gov/attendance_leave/index.cfm

Concerning an employee's allegations of having been defamed and, or, subjected to violations of New York State's Labor Law and, or its Civil Service Law, and, or 42 USC §1983 by the employer

Addressing the Petitioner's allegations concerning defamation, the Appellate Division explained:

1. "The elements of a cause of action for defamation are (a) a false statement that tends to expose a person to public contempt, hatred, ridicule, aversion, or disgrace, (b) published without privilege or authorization to a third party, (c) amounting to fault as judged by, at a minimum, a negligence standard, and (d) either causing special harm or constituting defamation per se", citing Greenberg v Spitzer, 155 AD3d 27. 

2. "A statement is defamatory per se if it, among other things, "charges the plaintiff with a serious crime" or "tends to injure the plaintiff in her or his trade, business, or profession", citing Laguerre v Maurice, 192 AD3d 44; 

3. "CPLR 3016(a) requires that [i]n an action for libel or slander, the particular words complained of shall be set forth in the complaint", citing Lemieux v Fox, 135 AD3d 713, [internal quotation marks omitted]). Compliance with this requirement is "strictly enforced" and "[a] cause of action sounding in defamation which fails to comply with these special pleading requirements must be dismissed" (id. [internal quotation marks omitted]; (see Tsamasiros v Jones, 232 AD3d 816). 

4. "The complaint must set forth the particular words allegedly constituting defamation, and it must also allege the time when, place where, and manner in which the false statement was made, and specify to whom it was made" (see Nofal v Yousef, 228 AD3d 772, [citation and internal quotation marks omitted]);

5. "While the amended complaint set forth allegedly defamatory remarks that the [Defendants] wrote on or about January 17, 2020, it failed to set forth the place where and to whom these remarks were published (see Oluwo v Mills, 228 AD3d 879, 880)." 

Accordingly, the Appellate Division held that:

a. "Supreme Court erred in denying those branches of the Defendants' motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the causes of action alleging defamation and defamation per se; and 

b. "The cause of action alleging intentional and willful conduct is, in effect, a demand for punitive damages. '[P]unitive damages may be awarded on proof of actual malice' (Gatz v Otis Ford, Inc., 274 AD2d 449, 450; see Liker v Weider, 41 AD3d 438, 439). However, 'New York does not recognize an independent cause of action for punitive damages' (Gershman v Ahmad, 156 AD3d 868, 868 [internal quotation marks omitted]), and '[a] demand or request for punitive damages is parasitic and possesses no viability absent its attachment to a substantive cause of action' (Podesta v Assumable Homes Dev. II Corp., 137 AD3d 767, 770 [internal quotation marks omitted])."

The Appellate Division concluded that as the Defendants "are entitled to dismissal of the causes of action alleging defamation and defamation per se, they also are entitled to dismissal of the demand for punitive damages."

With respect to the other defenses advanced by the Defendants in the instant action, the Appellate Division held that the allegations in the amended complaint were sufficient to state a cause of action alleging a violation of Civil Service Law §75-b as "Civil Service Law §75-b(2)(a)(ii) provides that adverse employment action may not be taken against a public employee based upon his or her disclosure of information which the employee reasonably believes to be true and reasonably believes constitutes an improper governmental action".

Further, the Court found that with respect to the Petitioner's allegation that he was terminated from his employment because of this disclosure, "the amended complaint sufficiently states a cause of action for a violation of Civil Service Law §75-b." However, the Appellate Division noted that at the time this action was commenced, the statute of limitations for a Civil Service Law §75-b cause of action was one year. Thus, only so much of the cause of action as related to the employer's alleged retaliatory act of terminating the Petitioner's employment on March 13, 2020, may be considered timely. 

With respect to Labor Law §215, The Appellate Division pointed out that this provision of law does "not apply to employees of the state or any municipal subdivisions or departments thereof".  As the Petitioner alleged that the employer was a "municipal corporation," he was a municipal employee while employed by the employer and was not protected under Labor Law §215. Likewise, Petitioner cannot maintain a cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law §193 against the Defendants, as governmental agencies are exempt from this statute as well.

Addressing 42 USC §1983, the Appellate Division observed that two essential elements must be present: (1) the conduct complained of must have been committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) the conduct complained of must have deprived a person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

However, Petitioner, an "At-will employee", did not have a property interest in his continued employment. Accordingly, the Appellate Division held that the amended complaint failed to state a cause of action alleging a violation of 42 USC §1983."

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.

Merriam-Webster defines jobbery as "the improper use of public office or conduct of public business for private gain".

Click HERE to access New York State's Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli's press release concerning a "jobbery" dated October 28, 2025.